Re: fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc]

psu@cs.duke.edu (Peter Su)
Sun, 7 Feb 1993 17:16:31 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1993-01-28)
fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (1993-02-06)
Re: fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] psu@cs.duke.edu (1993-02-07)
Re: fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (1993-02-11)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: psu@cs.duke.edu (Peter Su)
Keywords: performance
Organization: Duke University CS Dept., Durham, NC
References: 93-01-205 93-02-060
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 17:16:31 GMT

oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:


      Is there any interest in very fast compilers that sacrifice some code
      compactness and speed ... for sheer compilation speed?
      [Microsoft makes a fair amount of money selling Quick C, which compiles a
      lot faster than regular MS C and produces worse code. ... . -John]


These systems, and others like Think C on the Mac also depend on a very
fast link phase for their quick turnaround. I think they link mostly in
memory and with indirect jump tables and whatnot.


There was an SP&E paper on an incremental linker a while back that said it
increased UNIX compile cycles by huge factors.


Pete
--
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706
Internet: psu@cs.duke.edu
UUCP: mcnc!duke!psu
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.